USA and gun control

[SuperSneakyCow]

@Tigerman

[quote=“SuperSneakyCow”]Even though I sort of disagree with the idea that we should ban high capacity magazines, you’re misrepresenting what Cenk Uygur is saying.

I am not misrepresenting what Cenk said. I quoted both Johnson and Cenk exactly as they both spoke. Cenk misrepresented Johnson’s remarks. Its as plain as the words I cited.

I’m not agreeing with Johnson or Cenk. But, if you cannot see that Cenk is a political hack, then you’re either blind or you have your eyes shut.[/quote]

No, I actually listened to what they said, and used my fucking head to think about it. : D

Ron: “Government can’t do anything about gun control.”

Cenk: “Government can do something about gun control, if you stop preventing it, to the extent that you vote down bills that prevent terrorists from getting guns.”

“If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”

Herp. Turns out, I can read.

[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“Tempo Gain”]I don’t think he misrepresented him at all. Look at what Johnson says next:

[quote]
Interviewer: Is there anything that we as a society can to protect ourselves from these kind of twisted minds?

Johnson: No, unfortunately I don’t believe so. I wish there was. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make this tragedy go away, I wish I could wave a magic wand and make a law to prevent something like this in the future. But the fact of the matter is I really don’t think there is, other than look to our families, look to our communities, certainly take a look at our education system, you know, we’ve got to reinstate values into what we’re teaching our children.[/quote]

Johnson is saying there is no government solution, period. Uygur is simply calling him out on this point. Only government could possibly outright prevent people from buying such weapons. It’s just a simple, and rather calmly stated, refutation of Johnson’s viewpoint.[/quote]

Yes, that is how I saw it too especially when you get the last bit about reinstating values. As if this is a problem of values (and values as conservatives see them) and not regulation.

This is the first time I’ve ever seen Cenk, and while I don’t particularly like his style, nor find him very convincing or well argued, he doesn’t strike me at all as Tigerman would have it, as the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. I would know too as I used to watch Rush unlike Tigerman who always denied knowing much about his show or having any strong opinions.

Michael Moore is the Rush equivalent on the left, not Cenk as far as I can tell from this small bit of exposure.[/quote]

Cenk Leaves MSNBC (Inside Story)

Cenk was hired to work at MSNBC for his own show after winning a number of online polls of which progressive people wanted on TV. After he was called in by execs, saying that he was going hard on the establishment Republicans, and Democrats, he quit, even though, in the same meeting, they offered to double his pay.

Sellout, Rush Limbaugh nemesis, or political hack? No. Guy who’s frustrated with extremely corrupt Republicans, and lackadaisical Democrats, and sometimes goes over the top? Yes. But here, his point is completely logical. There are things that we can do as a society, and that’s make it harder for crazy people, and terrorists to get guns.

[Mucha_Man]

[quote]Republicans win because Democrats are idiots when it comes to the 2nd amendment. For example, one aspect the Dems can’t seem to grasp is that gun and ammo sales are a VENT that lets Americans express their support for the 2nd amendment with minimal violence (note that I did not say NO violence). Only an idiot closes that vent, i.e. Democrats.

By the way, gun and ammo sales are THROUGH THE ROOF since Friday. These are just the lawful sales. Americans love guns and the 2nd amendment, full stop.

If Dems were HALF as concerned with more regulation as they are with elections, they’d never let the words “more gun control” slip past their lips. They’re either idiots or the most cynical political party in America. Personally my vote is both stupid AND cynical.
[/quote]

So explain the anger bitterness bile and paranoia of posters like johnny? Your side is winning. Why are you such a-holes about it, to be perfectly frank? I’m never seen a winning side act like such a pack of whiners and conspiracy mongers.

[Gao_Bohan]

@flike

Republicans win because Democrats are idiots when it comes to the 2nd amendment. For example, one aspect the Dems can’t seem to grasp is that gun and ammo sales are a VENT that lets Americans express their support for the 2nd amendment with minimal violence (note that I did not say NO violence). Only an idiot closes that vent, i.e. Democrats.

So, allowing for the sale of guns and ammo is a way to prevent violence? :eh: It is at least possible that the victims of gun violence may slightly disagree. Except for the ones who are dead, of course. Their families may disagree though.

Americans love guns and the 2nd amendment, full stop.

That’s certainly true.

If Dems were HALF as concerned with more regulation as they are with elections, they’d never let the words “more gun control” slip past their lips. They’re either idiots or the most cynical political party in America. Personally my vote is both stupid AND cynical.

Hardly any Democrats have talked about gun control, except for House members in safe districts or the odd Senator from a deep blue state. Even then, it’s minimal. Democrats recognize that they’ve lost the gun control debate.

[Gao_Bohan]

@Mucha Man

So explain the anger bitterness bile and paranoia of posters like johnny? Your side is winning. Why are you such a-holes about it, to be perfectly frank? I’m never seen a winning side act like such a pack of whiners and conspiracy mongers.

I remember watching the 2004 Republican National Convention, and nearly every speaker was spitting mad - litearlly, I saw a few them actually spitting while they were ranting and raving about us evil liberals trying to take their guns and liberty. At the time, they controlled the White House, House, Senate, and Supreme Court.

[SuperSneakyCow]

I’m a liberal, and I’d like to own many guns, and kind of think knife laws suck. The problem is not necessarily how many guns we have, but the lack of regulation, and a private industry lobbying government to make the regulations that exist, weaker.

Too bad the other dumb fucks in the country think anyone should be able to carry anything, anywhere, anytime, because they’re terrified little pussies.

[flike]

@flike

Republicans win because Democrats are idiots when it comes to the 2nd amendment. For example, one aspect the Dems can’t seem to grasp is that gun and ammo sales are a VENT that lets Americans express their support for the 2nd amendment with minimal violence (note that I did not say NO violence). Only an idiot closes that vent, i.e. Democrats.

@Gao Bohan

So, allowing for the sale of guns and ammo is a way to prevent violence? :eh: It is at least possible that the victims of gun violence may slightly disagree. Except for the ones who are dead, of course. Their families may disagree though.

It prevents greater violence, yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. Do you think that’s .22 ammo and .410 shotguns flying off the shelves the past few days? I guarantee that what’s selling Is Teflon-coated, full metal jacketed, hollow point, high velocity stuff, the kind of ammo and guns that buyers believe to be most regulated if the Democrats get their way. So if you’re correct and g/a sales do NOT relieve gun violence then just what are the Democrat talking heads accomplishing with their rhetoric?

By the way, the families are free to buy guns and ammo, too, so there is SOME silver lining on their cloud, no?

… Tell you what, you leave out the sarcasm and I’ll leave your buttons alone. Deal?

[Gao_Bohan]

@flike

It prevents greater violence, yes. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.

You have presented neither any evidence, nor a compelling argument, that allowing for the unrestricted sale of dangerous weapons prevents violence.

Do you think that’s .22 ammo and .410 shotguns flying off the shelves the past few days? I guarantee that what’s selling Is Teflon-coated, full metal jacketed, hollow point, high velocity stuff, the kind of ammo and guns that buyers believe to be most regulated if the Democrats get their way. So if you’re correct and g/a sales do NOT relieve gun violence then just what are the Democrat talking heads accomplishing with their rhetoric?

Your assumption is that, absent the ability to buy more guns and ammo, these people would be shooting people. Right? And yet, you still haven’t explained why that is so. Here’s a different explanation. Most of the people buying those guns were never going to commit violent acts in the first place, and them buying guns has nothing to do with “venting” a non-existent predisposition towards murder. A small percentage of those people will, some day, use one or more of those guns to hurt or kill others. It will all be over within a matter of seconds, and it won’t make a lick of difference if anyone in the firing line is armed or not.

[quote]By the way, the families are free to buy guns and ammo, too, so there is SOME silver lining on their cloud, no?

… Tell you what, you leave out the sarcasm and I’ll leave your buttons alone. Deal?[/quote]

Feel free to continue presenting yourself as an angry, paranoid, gun-crazed maniac. I know the good guys are not going to win this one. Guns will always be available in the United States and so, as a direct consequence of your political philosophy, gun violence will always be much higher in the US than other countries. If we revisit this thread in ten years, guns and gun violence will still be commonplace in the United States. Let freedom ring! :America: :America: :America:

[flike]

@Gao Bohan

Your assumption is that, absent the ability to buy more guns and ammo, these people would be shooting people. Right? And yet, you still haven’t explained why that is so. Here’s a different explanation. Most of the people buying those guns were never going to commit violent acts in the first place, and them buying guns has nothing to do with “venting” a non-existent predisposition towards murder. A small percentage of those people will, some day, use one or more of those guns to hurt or kill others. It will all be over within a matter of seconds, and it won’t make a lick of difference if anyone in the firing line is armed or not.

There would be far more civil unrest, yes. That murder rates might rise? I think so, yes, but I agree that BY FAR the majority of gun buyers are law abiding citizens with zero predisposition to murder. In fact, thanks for that. I wish more people, especially non-Americans, would understand that about us gun-lovin’ Americans, troglodytes we be nonetheless.

Anyway, I think there would be serious civil unrest, that’s true. Murder, though, is another story.

@Gao Bohan

Feel free to continue presenting yourself as an angry, paranoid, gun-crazed maniac. I know the good guys are not going to win this one. Guns will always be available in the United States and so, as a direct consequence of your political philosophy, gun violence will always be much higher in the US than other countries. If we revisit this thread in ten years, guns and gun violence will still be commonplace in the United States. Let freedom ring! :America: :America: :America:

It’s like entitlements programs: Americans don’t trust Republicans (only) to fix entitlements because we know that the unhinged among them would LOVE to gut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In the same way Americans don’t trust Democrats to find a way to eliminate outliers like Aurora because the last 50 years, give or take, have taught us that the unhinged among them would LOVE to gut the 2nd amendment. The Democrats have spent the last 4.5 decades or so absolutely trashing any governing credibility they might have among voting gun owners regarding American gun rights, and there’s no political will in the House for obvious reasons.

Giving a problem like Aurora to the Democrats is VERY unlikely because they’re just not credible. You ask me, your sarcasm above can be chalked up to Democrats, not Republicans. The 2nd amendment hole they’ve dug themselves politically, the size of it, can’t be undone in time to accomplish any meaningful reform anytime soon.

[Tigerman]

@Mucha Man

This is the first time I’ve ever seen Cenk, and while I don’t particularly like his style, nor find him very convincing or well argued, he doesn’t strike me at all as Tigerman would have it, as the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

Cenk is a buffoon and uses hyperbole in much the same way that Rush does. The only difference between them that I can see is their political perspectives.

@Mucha Man

I would know too as I used to watch Rush unlike Tigerman who always denied knowing much about his show or having any strong opinions.

That’s pretty low, MM, even for you. Why do you feel the need to call the people with whom you disagree dishonest? I do not watch Rush. Never have. Of course, over the years, I have seen bits and pieces of videos of Rush as people have posted them here or have referred to him. I wouldn’t characterize my seeing those snippets now and then as watching. From what I’ve seen, I don’t like him.

Any way, at least I don’t constantly try to convince people here that I used to be a conservative, or used to be interested in conservative ideas. Sure you were… Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.

Give it a rest, please.

[SuperSneakyCow]

@Tigerman

[quote=“Muzha Man”]This is the first time I’ve ever seen Cenk, and while I don’t particularly like his style, nor find him very convincing or well argued, he doesn’t strike me at all as Tigerman would have it, as the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh.

Cenk is a buffoon and uses hyperbole in much the same way that Rush does. The only difference between them that I can see is their political perspectives. [/quote]

Except that he isn’t, and he doesn’t.

He’s responding to the people based on what they said, not on some extreme exaggeration of their position.

@SuperSneakyCow

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“SuperSneakyCow”]Even though I sort of disagree with the idea that we should ban high capacity magazines, you’re misrepresenting what Cenk Uygur is saying.

I am not misrepresenting what Cenk said. I quoted both Johnson and Cenk exactly as they both spoke. Cenk misrepresented Johnson’s remarks. Its as plain as the words I cited.

I’m not agreeing with Johnson or Cenk. But, if you cannot see that Cenk is a political hack, then you’re either blind or you have your eyes shut.[/quote]

No, I actually listened to what they said, and used my fucking head to think about it. : D

Ron: “Government can’t do anything about gun control.”

Cenk: “Government can do something about gun control, if you stop preventing it, to the extent that you vote down bills that prevent terrorists from getting guns.”

“If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.”[/quote]

Weird how you had no response to that. I’m shocked.

[Mucha_Man]

@Tigerman

Any way, at least I don’t constantly try to convince people here that I used to be a conservative, or used to be interested in conservative ideas…

Why would anyone doubt that? Really? Why? Chewie has written how he was a liberal until his early 20s. Do I doubt that? No, why would I? Why would any sane person doubt that someone has had different stages in their life? Are you really that naive, inexperienced, narrow?

You can look at my earliest posting on Fcom and see clearly I was between camps. I supported Bush in the earliest years, supported the Iraqi invasion and have consistently come out in favor of individuals being allowed to own guns. In my own country I voted Conservative in federal elections until my late 20s. I reverted back to Catholicism for a short time while in my late 20s as well and you can see in most threads on religion that I take faith in others at face value and respect it. So yes, lots of what I say and write is consistent with someone who was interested in conservative ideas and considered himself conservative for a time.

That said, I regret my earlier indiscretions. One of the biggest reasons I just had to pull away from conservatism is that it was/is filled, even dominated, with liars, loons, and bile-spewing racists and homophobes. It hasn’t gotten any better especially when even the decent people in the camp won’t call out the others.

[Belgian_Pie]

Fox news reaction on the movie theater shooting … 'should costumes be banned from movie theaters … ’ :loco: and not should we ban guns …

[Chris]

@Belgian Pie

Fox news reaction on the movie theater shooting … 'should costumes be banned from movie theaters … ’ :loco: and not should we ban guns …

I always find it bizarre how people in the media and politics suggest the stupidest “solutions” to these problems, like “We should arm more people” or “We should put the Ten Commandments up in high schools”, and never the plainly obvious: “We should make it harder for criminals and crazy people to get guns.”

Wouldn't It Be Great if Everybody Had a Gun?

[Omniloquacious]

Has anyone suggested that more censorship of films and the Internet might be part of the solution? After all, if you let the plebs have a gorp at Angeline Jolie’s boobs, isn’t it to be expected that some of them will be aroused to a state of crazed excitement, won’t be able to handle it, and will lose control of themselves, frenziedly pull out their weapons, and erupt into an orgiastic shooting spree.

[Chris]

@Omniloquacious

Has anyone suggested that more censorship of films and the Internet might be part of the solution? After all, if you let the plebs have a gorp at Angeline Jolie’s boobs, isn’t it to be expected that some of them will be aroused to a state of crazed excitement, won’t be able to handle it, and will lose control of themselves, frenziedly pull out their weapons, and erupt into an orgiastic shooting spree.

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone suggested censorship as a “solution”. I’m also tired of those on the left who blame violent video games, especially since study after study shows that they have no effect on making people more violent.

The problem is easy access to guns. That’s it.

[tempogain]

[quote=“Chris”]

The problem is easy access to guns. That’s it.[/quote]

But this guy is crazy Chris. If he didn’t have easy access to military assault weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, he could have just gone in there with 18 machetes and a golf club and done the same thing. When are we going to fix our education system so our mentally insane learn some values?

[rodeo]

Why the clamoring about gun laws after some nutjob shoots up a public place is my question.

Take all the people who have been killed in Chicago this year so far and you could FILL a movie theater. And that’s just Chicago.

[TheGingerMan]

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Chris”]

The problem is easy access to guns. That’s it.[/quote]

But this guy is crazy Chris. If he didn’t have easy access to military assault weapons and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, he could have just gone in there with 18 machetes and a golf club and done the same thing. When are we going to fix our education system so our mentally insane learn some values?[/quote]
18 machetes? And a golf club?

I would think it would much more difficult to kill folks with either of those than it would be the case with an automatic weapon, even for one trained in bludgeoning or gutting.

I think you do have it right about the illness part, though. And I think it speaks volumes about modern society, which to my mind creates more mental illness than that of the past.

[Chris]

Gun control overwhelmingly popular among American voters.

[cfimages]

As the 2nd amendment mentions “well-regulated militia” then only allow members of a well-regulated militia to own guns, ie police, army, etc. An average individual is certainly not a well-regulated militia.